Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kirti Soni vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:9573) on 17 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10412/2017
Sohan Lal S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Resident Of Chak 17 Ml,
Pathanwala Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Sri
Ganganagar.
2. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar.
3. The Block Development Officer Panchayat Samiti, Suratgarh
District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
Along With
Bunch of Petitions as Per [APPENDIX 'A']
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. C.S. Kotwani, Mr. Manish Patel, Mr. Harish Purohit, Mr.
Shashank Sharma, Mr. Yashpal Khileree, Mr. Manjeet, Mr. Lokesh
Mathur, Mr. Sanjay Raj Pandit, Mr. Hemant Kumar Joshi, Mr.
Aishwarya Anand, Mr. R.S. Choudhary, Mr. J.S. Bhaleria, Mr.
Deepak Pareek, Mr. Ripudaman Singh, Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, Mr.
Suresh Charan, Mr. Devendra Sanwalot, Mr. Jhamak Lal Nagda,
Mr. Rahul Vyas, Mr. S.K. Poonai, Mr. Govind Lal, Mr. Sandeep
Kalwaniya (through VC), Mr. V.S. Bhawla, Mr. Suniel Purohit, Mr.
Dinesh Ojha, Mr. Mr. Anil Bidan Halu, Mr. Ankur Mathur.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, AAG with Mr. Yashraj Singh
Kanawat, Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG, Mr. Vaibhav Bang for Mr.
N.K. Mehta, Dy.G.C., Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, Dy.G.C. with Mr.
Deepak Vaishnav, Ms. Dolly jaiswal for Mr. MahendraVishnoi, Mr.
Samir Shrimali, AGC, Mr. Lalit Pareek, Mr. Lalit Parihar, Mr. D.S.
Sodha, Mr. J.K. Mishra, Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit, Mr. Surendra
Singh Choudhary, Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati, Mr. I.R. Choudhary,
AAG, Mr. S.R. Paliwal, G.C., Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. B.L.
Bhati, AAG, Mr. Sandeep Soni,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Judgment(Oral)
17/02/2025
(2 of 5)
1. Vide instant common order, the entire bunch of petitions as
detailed in Appendix 'A' is being disposed of as common
controversy is involved therein.
2. Petitioners in the bunch of petitions, working as
teachers/doctors/engineers/other officers in different
departments, are assailing the respective orders vide which their
services have been put in a category, what is called 'Awaiting
Posting Orders' (APO). The individual facts of the cases are thus
not relevant for adjudication of the controversy herein.
3. Common grievance of the petitioners being, that by virtue of
respective impugned transfer orders of APO, as a bolt from blue,
work has been withdrawn from them without assigning/conveying
any reasons or if/where conveyed, the same are not tenable.
Apart therefrom, under the garb of making them APO, they are
being put to humiliation at their work place.
4. During pendency of the petitions, interim orders were
granted in favour of the petitioners staying the operation and
effect of the impugned APO orders. Said stay orders continue to
subsist in favor of the petitioners till date.
5. Posting/Transfers including awaiting posting orders (APO) are
a standard and integral aspect of government employment
conditions. Employees do not possess an inherent right to demand
continuation of their service at a specific location.
6. This court ordinarily refrains from intervening in transfer
matters, acknowledging administrative needs for employees to
fulfill their duties at assigned locations.
(3 of 5)
7. Given the sheer duration of the interim protection granted by
this court, its utility appears to have waned with efflux of time
coupled with the change of circumstances.
8. In the premise, the interim orders are made absolute with
liberty to the respondents to pass fresh posting orders in future, if
necessary due to administrative exigency. Vide a detailed order
and judgment of even date i.e. 17.02.2025 in another bunch of
petitions captioned as Ganraj Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15366/2024, guidelines have
been framed for invocation of Rule 25 of Rajasthan Service Rules,
1951, under which the competent administrative authorities pass
orders to put an official in the category of APO. For the sake of
brevity, the reasons and discussions contained therein be also
read as part and parcel of the instant order. In case, fresh orders
are required to be passed, same shall be in accordance with law
as per the guidelines framed therein.
9. In the parting, it is made clear that granting liberty to pass
fresh orders is not to be construed as a direction of this Court to
necessarily pass fresh orders in case there is no such requirement
otherwise.
10. All the writ petitions stand disposed of as above.
11. All pending application (s) shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
Whether Fit for Reporting:- Yes / No
Jitender Rana - Sumit Sharma
(4 of 5)
Appendix 'A'
Sr. Case No. Title / Post & Department Date of Reason
No. APO
1. 10412/2017 Sohan Lal Vs. State (VDO) 17.08.2017 Due to
Panchayati Raj Department irregularity
2. 11513/2017 SohanLal Vs. State (VDO) 05.09.2017 On Transfer of
Panchayati Raj Department some other
person.
3. 5779/2020 Udaibhan Yadav Vs. State 06.07.2020 Reason not
(VDO) mentioned
Panchayat Samiti
4. 5570/2022 Kirti Soni Vs. State (Excise 01.04.2022 Bad
Inspector) Performance
Excise Department
5. 2056/2023 Laxmi Narayan Kumhar Vs. 27.01.2023 Post not vacant
State (Senior Assistant)
Medical & Health
6. 2083/2023 Jai Singh Choudhary Vs. 16.01.2023 Due to
State (Deputy DFO) Agitation of
Forest Department Villagers
7. 2825/2023 Rajesh Vyas Vs. State (JEN) 31.01.2023 Reason not
Rajasthan Urban Drinking mentioned
Water Sewerage and
Infrastructure Corporation
Limited
8. 3408/2023 Vishnu Prasad Meena Vs. 01.03.2023 Reason not
State (Deputy Registrar) mentioned
Dept. Cooperative Society
9. 5975/2023 ChhaganlalKhatik Vs. State 20.04.2023 Reason not
(Physical Education Teacher) mentioned
Education Department
10. 8925/2023 DarshrathUdania Vs. State 30.06.2023 Reason not
(Junior Draftsman) mentioned
Mining Department
11. 8945/2023 Radha Meena Vs. State 27.06.2023 Due to surplus
(ANM)
Medical Department
12. 8969/2023 Lakma Ram Vs. State (VDO) 03.07.2023 Reason not
Panchayati Raj Department mentioned
13. 9007/2023 Jai Vasudhra Bharti Vs. 22.06.2023 Due to surplus
State (ANM) Medical
Department
14. 9338/2023 Sunil Kumar Vs. State (VDO) 03.07.2023 Reason not
Panchayati Raj Department mentioned
15. 9341/2023 Om Prakash Vs. State 07.07.2023 Misbehaviour
(Manager) with
Central Cooperative Bank, employees
Nagaur
16. 9737/2023 Sugna Ram Vs. State (VDO) 14.07.2023 On complaint
Panchayat Samiti
17. 10697/2023 MangilalSoni Vs. State 28.07.2024 Administrative
(SMO) Reasons
Medical Department
(5 of 5)
18. 19778/2023 Keerti Jain Vs. State 07.10.2023 Administrative
(Supervisor Women Reason
Empowerment)
Department of Women and
Child Development
19. 19810/2023 Gordhan Vs. State (Senior 19.12.2023 Due to long
Assistant) absence on
Medical & Health duty
20. 835/2024 Hussain Khan Vs. State 29.12.2023 Pendency of
(Prabodhak) criminal case
Dept. Education Department and on
complaint of
villagers
21. 984/2024 Saroj Vs. State (Nursing 29.12.2023 On complaint
Officer) of villagers for
Medical Department demanding
money
22. 1568/2024 Bhawar Lal Jakhar Vs. State 19.01.2024 Reason not
(VDO) mentioned
Dept. Panchayat Samiti
23. 2661/2024 Dr. Dilip Choudhary Vs. State 19.02.2024 Administrative
(BCMO) Exigency
Medical Department
24. 3981/2024 Dr. PrahladSahai Yadav Vs. 29.02.2024 Reason not
State (Veterinary Doctor) mentioned
Animal Husbandry
Department
25. 4287/2024 Ramkesh Meena Vs. State 01.03.2024 Reason not
(VDO) mentioned
Panchayati Raj Department
26. 4340/2024 Harshita Rao Vs. State 04.03.2024 Administrative
(Medical Officer) Reasons &
Medical Department Public Interest
27. 4953/2024 DhannaramMeghwal Vs. 14.03.2024 Administrative
State (AEN) Reasons
PHD Department
28. 5830/2024 Akleema Parveen Vs. State 23.02.2024 Reason not
(Teacher Grade-II) mentioned
Education Department
29. 7852/2024 Dr. Mukesh Vs. State 07.03.2024 Administrative
(Doctor) Exigency
Dept. Medical & Health
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
